I’ve just read that over half of Andrew’s pitch @ the palace company funds have been withdrawn during the last 12 months. No current explanation as to where the money has gone.
What is it going to take for the British public to wake up and say “we’ve had enough of these free loading, tax evading parasites “?
I simply cannot believe that in 2025 there’s still a belief in the accidental privilege of birth.
But maybe I’m wrong and William really does have magic sperm that can create princes and princesses. If so Disney have missed a trick…
Not a royalist then!
Having only lived under one monarch from birth until Charlie and his flusy came along I think his right to the throne should have been cancelled and gone straight to William.
Queen Camilla, what a joke.
The pageantry around the royal family must surely bring more in to the UK than is spent on them (not fact checked but sure someone will).
William and Kate are a couple of their time and that time should be now.
Unfortunately, outside of erecting a guillotine at the end of the Mall, it is a long process to remove them. And then the question how they are replaced. President Johnson…?
In fairness, a start is being made - the house of lords, another band of parasites is being further reformed with removal of the last of the silver spoons - but at what cost? Making more room for a PM’s croneys…
I’d go the other way and have the whole Westminster bubble tossed in a woodchipper and put William in charge with the understanding that any minister, MP, councillor, civil servant or other taxpayer funded employee of the state found lining their pockets meets the axe outside the White Tower.
I’d even consider being The Royal Headsman gratis if they covered my travel expenses.
Strangely enough as a lifelong republican I think that Camilla and Charlie are the best of the bunch. Doesn’t make it right though and I suspect that my defence of them originates in the similarity of our marital stories.
That’s just your judgement/opinion about the present incumbent. The whole point of an hereditary monarchy is that it is, err, hereditary. Your argument undermines that principal.
Once you start to manage the line of succession (managed by who?) you may as well scrap the whole thing & become a republic & lose all the stuff & nonsense about royalty.
Removing the actual people involved does not remove the vast wealth of tourist attractions that their role has produced over time i.e. the argument that the presence of a bunch of over privileged windbags somehow brings the tourist money in is flawed.
In the same way that atheists can still wonder at the buildings that have been built to glorify something that they don’t believe in, so to can the curious appreciate the royal palaces without the residents. Actually, more places would become accessible as the need to protect the parasites would have gone away.
A bit like Versailles then, I assume that many tourists go there, do they?
I should know because I once embarrassingly found myself amongst lots of cars and coaches there after taking a wrong turning with my very large lorry.
I think the main argument in favour of a monarch as head of state is precisely that they are not a politician.
If you have a President, they are either a meaningless figurehead (who doesn’t attract any tourists!) or a politician who runs the country, in which case you run the risk of having a Trump or Erdogan.
By having a hereditary monarch you do have a focus for national pride and ceremonial but without politics, which is a good thing IMHO. And the Royals having been around for hundreds of years gives a sense of continuity.
Having them open community centres and act as charity patrons may seem a trivial thing, but it does make people at the bottom of the pile feel that they are noticed and remembered.
During Covid I photographed a visit to the Royal Surrey Hospital by Sophie Wessex (as she then was), to help out with a charity that was providing meals for NHS workers - she got stuck in and helped prepare meals as well as distributing them, and there was a definite boost to morale by having someone like that come along - it didn’t feel patronising or a token gesture in any way. She gave me the impression that she was genuinely keen to help in any way she could.
As an aside I think a lot of French people hanker after having their monarchy back in a similar form to Britain’s - they do seem to take quite an interest in it!
There is definitely a case for the British Monarchy to be slimmed down, but I get the impression that Charles (and to a greater extent William) are starting that process (hopefully beginning with Prince Andrew who really is a waste of space - and yes I know he risked his life in the Falklands but that was a long time ago, he’s had a free ride since).
@ChrisMann , I can see the point of that arguement but do they have to be so privileged, rich and devoid of all monetary contributions to the country and its people? I have never paid income tax in France because I have never breached the threshold, but I was charged £100 a month when the UK taxman made the same mistake twice. That’s a massive £1200 a year difference.
On balance no, everybody who has a direct influence on the way a country is run should be required to apply for permission to the citizens, and if it is the case that a monarch does not have any influence, then what is the point of them?
Overall it seems the Monarchy has a net financial benefit to the UK economy:
(anti-monarchists will of course look only at the direct costs and not the indirect benefits and tell you they cost us half a billion a year. )
Probably the truth is somewhere in between.
There are plenty of non-royal billionaires and millionaires in the UK who evade tax and do fuck all for the country, so “being rich” (which sort of goes with the job) is not something I think particularly matters. As I mentioned it’s not just about PR for “UK plc” they do support a lot of charities directly and indirectly.
I do think Prince Andrew should be off the payroll though, and any other Royal who blots their copybook.
If the UK had a Presidency it might perhaps be more “cost-effective” but I think it would be a shame to throw so much history and tradition out with the bathwater.
Some people base their like/dislike of the Royals on their reaction to them as people; others are pro or anti the institution of Monarchy. As you prefer.
But you wouldn’t be. As I’ve pointed out all the physical trappings would still be there for the tourists to flock to.
I have no beef with the individuals per se, but the behaviour of wayward royals has often been covered up in the past, due to the sensitivity of their position i.e. they have got away with things that the man on the Clapham omnibus would not.
However, for me it’s all about the anachronistic institution, & the willingness of many people to tug their forelocks & generally revel in feeling inferior to some form of mythical greatness.
I don’t know anyone like that and, to be honest, I doubt many exist. In the 1950s, or 1850s, perhaps it was different. I’m sure there are some people who like the idea of getting an honour, but nowadays that seems to be little more than a super-gold clock for long service.
Nowadays I suspect many people take the view that a monarchy is like democracy: the worst way of running a country apart from all the others. A Presidency? Like in the USA?
I admired the Queen: she (like Princess Anne, and the Duke of Edinburgh) was a very hard worker, and kept at it until death. No retirtement or taking it easy (unlike your man on the Clapham omnibus). The current incumbent I don’t admire particularly.
I’m a pragmatist. Keeping the Head of State as far away as possible from real power, yet requiring those with real power (especially the Armed Forces) to swear allegiance to him/her rather than to Parliament, is surely the safest way of ensuring stability.
And that’s before you consider the effect on tourism (and the Exchequer).
Lazy counter argument. Why single out that useless oaf as though he or some other equally incompetent would be the only alternative to the archaic system already in place.
But personalities are largely irrelevant: it’s teh institution that’s important, and (for reasons I indicated above), we’ve got a pretty good alternative.
Remember Spain, when they tried a coup d’état? I have very little time for Juan Carlos, but he was on the side of democracy (like King Charles would be): you could never be sure of that with an elected HoS.
Why not swear allegiance to the country and the people? Military might is what put the royals where they are. Like it or not the current royals have their wealth and position thanks to brutal ancestors.
How many generations before the Kims or Putins can claim the same legitimacy?
)